User reviews

Let me start off by saying that like everyone I had a feeling this could go wrong. You have a terrible writer, Skip Woods(even if I enjoyed The A-Team) and a terrible director, John Moore. The people at Fox must be idiots because John Moore has not made one good film, so to trust him with the Die Hard franchise seemed a bad idea. The film has a lot of action if not too much, there isn't any dialog!!!! At 97 minutes it's the shortest one in the series ans it sure feels that way. Every other film in the franchise were longer, they gave you more time to explore the rest of the film. But this one feels so rushed, like okay let's go there , and then here,... The film has no structure. It's like they said "alright guys were gonna make this as fast as possible" Bruce Willis is fine but it's like he doesn't even talk during the whole movie, his chemistry with Jai Courtney is fine. The plot is okay even if you can see the twist coming after 25 minutes. What makes this film still enjoyable is the action even though it's disturbed by shaky-cam, bad editing and bad CGI effects. If they are gonna make another one they should bring back John Mctiernan and make the movie on a smaller scale. Back to basics!! If they make it on a bigger scale than they should make it as good as With a Vengeance.And another thing: You can't drive from Moscow to Chernobyl in a couple of hours!!!!!!

This is by far the worst entry in the franchise

First off, I am a huge fan of the three first films, the fourth film was alright, but it didn't feel like a Die Hard movie, sadly, this one doesn't either.

A Good Day To Die Hard is a huge mess. No good plot, bad cgi, rushed scenes etc. Only thing I found good was the action. An R rating didn't help this one at all. It almost seems like they tried to make this PG-13 at first, but then changed it to R later because fans were complaining about Live Free or Die Hard's (Aka Die Hard 4.0)'s rating. The movie has PG-13 / 12A violence, and this is disappointing. John Moore could of done so much more with this film, but instead, he messes it up just like he did with Max Payne. Good action, but no good story or character development.

Jai Courtney (who starred in Jack Reacher earlier this year) did well on his part, and I do hope he returns if they are making a 6th one, but I am begging, please get a good director for the 6th one, since Bruce says it will possibly be the last one. Bring McTiernan back, and let him end the series with a huge bang! I am sorry to say this, but the film was not good at all. Being an hard-core Die Hard fan, I suggest that other fans should just let this one pass.

I love Die Hard, but shaky camera ruined it for me this time. I can't see because 35% film use shaky camera, 25% out of focus, blurry and 10% rapid zoom ins. Please STOP using Shaky Camera in Films, PLEASE :I am some of those remaining species, who go to watch feature films in cinemas. I never download a movie for free, I pay to netflix. Just doing my part to save the cinema I love. But, some directors and movie making houses, make stupid moves. One of them is use of unwanted, un-needed, shaky camera. So, I want to get my voice heard. If you are a fan, go see the movie, but if you don't like Shaky Camera, then think twice.

I am heartbroken.

It's a sad day to say this, but it has to be said: "A Good Day to Die Hard" is a dud. The fifth instalment in the beloved "Die Hard" saga ends up as the worst of the series so far; it falters thanks to a weak characterization, even weaker screen writing, lack of worthy villains, absurd action sequences and incoherent direction. You can bet this movie will be mentioned in the same sentence with "Rocky V", "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace", "Speed 2: Cruise Control", "Die Another Day" and "Batman & Robin". Not even the R-rating and the return of the famous "Yippie ki yay" line in full can save this one.

As much as I love action movies, I like mine with a side of plot and character, of which this film fails at. John McClane, one of my favorite film characters of all time, is given a horrendous treatment no beloved character should ever be given: relegated to a sidekick. This is HIS movie, not his son's! From the start he is inexplicably thrust into Russia with no back story of how the previous films over the years have shaped his character now - a key trait that was visible in the previous four films. He is reduced to a wise-cracking action supercop, and even his wisecracks are weak. However, Bruce Willis, bless him, is still McClane without a doubt, as he dishes out the bad guys with weathered-out cynicism in his eyes. He still has it in him, and in no way it is his fault that this movie turned out to be near-crap.

Rather, writer Skip Woods and director John Moore are to blame. Woods clearly missed the whole point of McClane's essence and likability - he is a vulnerable human - an everyday Joe who only stops the bad guys when "there's no one else that can do it". He is a reluctant hero in the first four films, he can get seriously wounded, as he is up against worthy adversaries that are cool, calculative and almost one step ahead of him. Here, McClane, in the opening car chase, and immediately causes mass vehicular damage just to stop thugs from attacking his son, shows no signs of vulnerability (after TWO major car crashes), and has no qualms about killing the bad guys wherever they pop up here. His son Jack (Jai Courtney), filling in for McClane's sidekick, has certain charisma and shows a few glimpses of character development in McClane but it is cut short by the merciless and absurd action sequences.

A good action movie has to have a good villain. "Die Hard 5" has none. It has three primary villains, all of them forgettable. Nothing with the likes of even Thomas Gabriel or Colonel Stuart (the Gruber Brothers must be smirking right now in hell). They're not intelligent, not menacing, not memorable. They're just dumb, die, and that's it. What was their evil plot? What dastardly deeds do they have? Weapons dealing. Oh the humanity!

The film runs at 97 minutes - the shortest in the series. Why the film was released at this length I don't want to know. Nobody complained about the 2 hour running time for each of the previous four movies. Imagine what a better movie this could've been with those cut scenes added back in.

John Moore directs with the subtlety of a car crash. He smash cuts every scene, puts heavy use of slow motion in the excruciatingly absurd climax, and relies heavily on CGI for most of the action sequences. But like all Die Hard movies, there has to be at least one sensational action sequence, and that is at the film's beginning. The only thing I really enjoyed (in a guilty pleasure sort of way) about the whole movie was a massive, destructive stunt-filled car chase throughout the streets of Moscow. It was an intense and exciting scene. Pity the rest of the movie can't hold up to this sensational chase scene alone, especially the end which essentially turns McClane into The Terminator. If you think the F-35 scene in "Die Hard 4" was absurd, hoo boy, wait until you get a load of this one.

At the very least, there's some competent cinematography from Jonathan Sela and a good, riveting music score from Marco Beltrami, who really knows his stuff when it comes to action, as well as incorporating Michael Kamen's themes into this one. If anything, the music is better than the movie.

There is a 6th (and according to Bruce, final) movie in the works. Here's a no brainer - bring back John McTiernan or Renny Harlin (hell, even Len Wiseman for all I care), and hire a good screenwriter who really delivers the old school action goods. I strongly believe Bruce and McClane can deliver the goods still and ride off into the sunset, instead of falling off his horse here. They just need a better story, better direction, and a more than worthy villain with a respected British actor in the role. The franchise doesn't deserve to die with this. It's too good for that.

Shame on you, John Moore and Skip Woods.

Q: So what did everyone do as soon as they heard John Moore was directing the next Die Hard film?

A: Look up his filmography and see titles like the remake of Omen and Max Payne.

And now, sadly, A Good Day to Die Hard will join his list of notoriously bad films. As much as I wanted to like this movie, I just couldn't; not even as a die hard fan of the franchise.

First, let's look at the selling point. We're promised ONE thing: a larger scale as far as action sequels go. The first Die Hard took place in a building, the second one in an airport and, the third in NYC, and the fourth in the entire nation of the United States. So logically, Die Hard 5 was going to go international.

Well, ironically, A Good Day to Die Hard feels like the smallest film of the five because the stakes feel so low. The action is endless chaos from start to finish; you quickly become numb to it. And unlike previous Die Hard films, the terrorist threats never get carried out. I never felt like John McClane was going to lose.

The one-liners aren't clever. The jokes aren't funny. The bad family relationship story is getting really old, especially when Die Hard 4 primarily focused on the estranged father-daughter relationship. And unlike Lucy who just came off as a spoiled brat, Jack McClane is introduced by pulling a gun on his own father who we have grown to love over four movies.

I can't speak too much about the "villain" (played by Radivoje Bukvić) without spoilers, but all I have to say is that he has little to no part in the movie. The evil Russian comes off as a cliché, and again, he carries out no threat. I'm dying to talk about the story here, but let's just say it has a really brain dead ending.

In an attempt to end the review on a more positive note, I'd like to say that the movie does have some "oh sh*t" moments here and there. However, I'd still stay clear of this one.

All right, basically all you need to know about this latest "Die Hard" movie is that once again, Bruce Willis plays cop John McClane and he's now in Russia to rescue his grown son who he thinks is in trouble. He's actually a CIA agent sent to take someone out of jail for some files. There's also a very alluring young woman named Irina played by Yuliya Snigir in this movie. Oh, and then there's a ridiculous amount of car crashes that had me just staring in astonishment at how they had the gall to wreck so many vehicles. Still, the story is pretty compelling if one doesn't think too much about it and the length is short enough so on that note, A Good Day to Die Hard is still a pretty entertaining movie.

As a fan of the Die Hard series I feel the need to warn others - Don't waste 97 minutes of your life on this movie! Yes, it really is that bad.

Here's a concise summary of why it's just so bad:

1) John McClane's role is really as a side-kick. Why do this to the big man .... why?

2) The movie lacks a bad guy. Does the movie have people that are bad - of course, but it lacks that McClane v Super-villain factor.

3) There's very little of the Die Hard humour we've all grown to love.

4) The movie parodies the Hans Gruber death sequence - never - never do this.

5) Jai Courtney is terrible. It's hard to discern if it's the role he's been asked to play or him, but either way he come across as a spoiled brat pretending to be Jason Bourne.

6) There's hardly any script - it's as if the script were sandwiched in post production to fit around the bangs and crashes.

7) It's not in the USA. This sounds trivial but it's not - the film just doesn't work outside of its tried and tested environment.

8) The car chase scene - oh my. If you do choose to watch the movie after reading this the good news is that yes, it does eventually end - although it may not feel this way.

So in summary, go plant a tree, play football, go for a walk, in fact - do anything but for the love of all that you hold dear - don't waste your life on this.

That is John McClane's question to his son. "Not really. I kinda thought we would just wing it, you know. Running in, guns blazing! Make it up as we go," says John Mcclane Jr. (who is for reasons unknown called Jack for most of the movie.) That's also probably what the makers of this film were thinking while shooting this latest addition to the beloved Die Hard franchise. The film feels like it doesn't have much of a script, it doesn't have any of the usual one-liners that were one of the reasons that we grew fond of the character of John McClane. Oh, there actually is one. Willis repeats " I'm on vacation" throughout the film. It is funny the first time he says it, but you get tired of it when he says the line for the fifth time.

Another big problem is that this film lacks a villain. All the previous Die Hard films stood on the confrontation between McClane and the main villain. They communicated with walkie-talkies and didn't even meet 'till the finale. But there was this tension and fear from both sides that there is this possibility that one could bring down the other. I can't go on and call that tap dancing, carrot chewing clown a villain.

But I don't want to be all negative. If this film wouldn't have Die Hard in name, it would have been actually good action flick. You get enough explosions and smashed cars, everything you were promised in the trailers. You also get an helicopter smashing through a building, which is one of the things I love the most in action films: destroying helicopters. As an action flick to waste some time with it is OK. It just lacks in the story and characters department.

Bruce Willis doesn't act at all in this film. It's like he goes on autopilot. Plus he doesn't play John McClane, the ordinary man from the streets, who winds up being at the wrong place at the wrong time and has to use his wit and skills to outsmart the bad guys. No, he plays John McClane, the superhero, who never gets hurt and his only objective is to kill all the scumbags. In all the previous films he wasn't looking for trouble, but trouble found him. Here he is looking for trouble.

The Die Hard franchise should have been left alone after the brilliant fourth installment Live Free or Die Hard. I guess you can rent this film when you have got nothing better to do on a rainy afternoon and want to kill some time with a simple action movie.

John McClain has grown into an aged character, who calls all the other cops kids. He has managed to take all his demons from his past and use them into making himself a celebrated, although conflicted, legend on the force. This time around he is sent to Russia on the advice of his daughter to find and bring home his son who is in trouble and facing imprisonment there. Unknown to him, his son is actually undercover for the CIA and on a mission to extract a very important witness, who has a file that can incriminate a lot of bad Russians. When John and son meet in a middle of a terrorist attack in Moscow, the fun ensues. What is fun about the later films in the Die Hard series are the situations that John runs into. They are like second nature now and he seems to handle them like we would grocery shopping. What I liked about this film is the film-makers match the serious/comedy quotient that was so good in Die Hard 2. There also is a lot of great slow motion scenes, fun action and the comedy level that made this a good day at the theater.

8.2 (B MyGrade) = 8 IMDB

Now, I'm a fan of the first three movies. I love them really a lot, especially the original but I also love the 3rd installment, mainly due to the chemistry between Jackson and Willis. That was phenomenal. I could not connect with much in the 4th movie as it was a lot of CGI and made John McClane a superhero who seemed invincible. I wasn't setting my standards high for this one at all as I knew what it could turn out to be, but BOY...This movie really is awful

This movie is based around John McClane who travels to Russia to deal with his son's issues. There, a whole lot of crap begins to happen. This movie attempts to have such a complex plot for a Die Hard whereas the other four were so simple that even the dumbest person could tell what was happening. Its like this director, the guy who made the god awful Max Payne thought that the plot had to be complex for an action film like Die Hard As a regular movie, this movie may NOT be that bad but as a Die Hard movie, it is god awful. I couldn't bear to watch the pain that I went through in this film, why? Because, almost nothing in this movie resembled anything about Die Hard. There was no tone, no tension and as a result, it felt nothing like Die Hard. NOTHING!

The characters really are all awful, with the exception of John McClane who still has a bit of relatability to him. Bruce Willis does a fantastic job in the movie but every other member of the cast really didn't appeal to me. The villain was weak, John's son was uninteresting and a lame addition to the franchise, as if he were there to sell action figures. The story was no fun and the action was all messy This movie does absolutely nothing to resemble the Die Hard films and as such, one of the most anticipated movies of 2013 has fallen down a drain with overuse of CGI, lame characters and plot, uninteresting villain with no real intention and another excuse to make more money out of it.

A Good day to Die Hard is a movie that makes you think that this day is a good day for you to die hard. Do not watch it, pointless action movie that does not resemble Die Hard.

Looking through the user reviews here on IMDb, one would think that this movie is awful. I read through them before I saw the movie and was expecting to be disappointed as the opening sequence played out. The first 20 minutes weren't that bad at all and I began to wonder what the problem was. As soon as the action picked up, I completely forgot about the opinions of others and really began to enjoy it. Strange, right?

Thinking about it, I think I've figured out the number one issue that people have here. This is a fun movie. Ya hear that Die Hard fans? It doesn't just need to be tension and suspense. This sequel amplifies two aspects of the series. The humour, and the action, and let me tell you, it does great in both of those. The action is very over the top, but not in a bad way. The way it's presented is sometimes irritating due to frequent camera cuts, but this was only a real problem during a car chase near the beginning. I never noticed this a second time throughout the movie so I wouldn't put it down as a huge problem. The action is well handled when it comes to gun play and the explosions are fine. Nothing to write home about, but they do their job of being explode-y.

Now let's discuss the humour. This is by far the funniest of the Die Hard series. Now most die hard fans of Die Hard (see what I did there?)will complain that the series isn't supposed to be funny. Well my advice to these folks is to get over it because this movie is hilarious. There's no getting around it, it's really funny. There was only one thing that seemed really forced and somewhat irritating. The fact that our hero, is on vacation. He must use that line six or seven times. We get it John, you're on vacation, get over it. Other than this repeated joke, most of the lines really work. Oh, and don't worry, a certain catchphrase that was cut short in the last movie has its cameo.

Maybe I'm crazy, but all of these other reviewers really seem like they're complaining a bit too much. Of course the only legitimate complaint I've heard is about the villain. Yes, a good villain is something that all Die Hard movies should have, and this really doesn't deliver in that aspect. He's really not on screen for most of the movie and his plan seems kind of clichéd, but ya know what? I found myself not caring as I sat in the theater. The action and humour were enough to make up for any faults this has.

Long story short, see this movie. I have a feeling that fans of the Die Hard series might complain about the new tone of this, but they'll get over it. This is my third favorite of the series (behind the first and third one)and I couldn't be more satisfied with it. Saying that, it does have plenty of faults, so I'll give it 7/10

The movie certainly suffers from a lot of issues. That was to be expected. However, unlike Liver Free or Die Hard, A Good Day to Die Hard biggest problem wasn't it's director, it was it's script writer, Skip Woods.

Despite the fact that, pretty much like the last movie, McClane is now a bald James Bond instead of an everyday man in extraordinary situations (which is truly what McClane is all about, not "a rebel who defies authority", like Bruce Willis thinks) the R rating does wonders for the character and it's surroundings. The atmosphere of the movie feels a hell of a lot more at home this time around than it did last time.

Grit and intensity, nowhere to be seen in Die Hard 4, is finally back to some (very welcomed) extent. Action is more down to Earth. Moore is by no means a cinematic genius, but we should thank him for this. He's not anyone's first choice to direct anything in this franchise, but his style is undoubtedly more adequate for Die Hard than Wiseman's (whose take felt septic and artificial).

THE BAD

• Dialogue. Cheesy at times. Stupid at others. And it's a God damn shame, because with some thoughtful corrections, the movie could have been far better. I wish they scrapped the part where Lucy calls him on the cellphone. Stupid.

• Terminator McClane: yes people, he's still the insufferable, indestructible, committed super hero he was in Live Free or Die Hard. Don't misunderstand me: Willis moans and even whimpers sometimes, but it feels artificial. Lacked grit. And there was a point when the character was far off of what he truly is (certain dialog should have been given to Jack instead of John, who is supposed to be very reluctant).

• They don't fully take advantage of the R rating. Which was unintelligent. I mean: if they intended this to be an R rated movie, why not go all the way through and put it on the same level the original trilogy is? Perhaps because they expected to make cuts in certain countries. A shame, because there are a couple of kills that are both memorable and (very) brutal.

• Choppy edits. Remember the clips and special featurettes? The scenes they belong to didn't get much better. That's John Moore for you guys. I like to do my homework which is why I knew this was to be expected. It even says so in his IMDb page; "known for his choppy edits".

HOWEVER, I think they heavily cut certain parts to shorten the movie. You remember certain pictures on set of John and Jack fighting against two guys from the Russian mob? Not in the movie.

THE GOOD

• Over the top? Yes. But not as cheesy, cretinistic and ridiculous as the last movie was. Nothing in here is nearly remotely as corny as McClane surfing a jet. Or a Terminator action figure coincidentally hitting a key to detonate a bomb inside a computer, or McClane being saved by two cars conveniently running on opposite direction of a flying vehicle. Or toll boots magically serving as catapults instead of being simple constructions on flat surfaces.

• The villain: far better, far smarter, far more menacing than Thomas Gabriel. People are talking crap about "OMG YOU NEVER KNOW WHO THE VILLAIN IS!". Are they silly? There IS a clear main villain. However, they broke the Die Hard tradition in the sense that while you know who he clearly was from the start in all the previous movies, here is kind of a plot twist at the last 20 minutes. Still far better and definitely more menacing than Thomas Gabriel. And he actually tries to pull a Hans Grüber! To no success, unfortunately... (You'll understand when you see).

• Climatic, at least. Live Free or Die Hard villain death was pretty "meh", gray and boring. Here the delivery is much better. And the kill was brutal. (Both of them).

• The action felt more down to Earth.

• While the true John McClane is still nowhere to be seen (perhaps Willis doesn't have it any more) at least the ghost of him was present in this movie.

THE FUNNY

Cole Hauser. What the hell???

CONCLUSIONS

Can this be considered a worthy successor to the original trilogy? No. But at least is not as alienated to the Die Hard "feeling" as Live Free or Die Hard was. A Good Day to Die Hard is the half-witted brother of the original trilogy, and that dim familiarity makes it enjoyable. It's a guilty pleasure. If Die Hard 1 is Rocky, and Die Hard 2 and 3 are Rocky 2, this movie is the Rocky 4 of the franchise. (Live Free or Die Hard wasn't anything at all).

And it's a bloody shame, because I feel critics are mostly tearing this apart for being the fifth part of a franchise whose most recent take we saw recently. They are being overly sarcastic dicks like they were with Die Hard 3, which is far, far better than Live Free or Die Hard. And that happened simply because the previous movies were too close.

if Live Free or Die Hard was released today, it would have gotten all the bad reputation this movie is having. Period.

I gave it a 3 to be nice because i'll always have a huge place in my heart for Die Hard, and just because i am loyal to the franchise i will probably buy this piece of junk on DVD when it comes out. Maybe when it comes out on DVD it'll be the extended edition ( seriously it was barely and hour and an a half long) and it'll actually have a story instead of just long drawn out action scenes, one-liners, and dialogue we can actually hear over the load background noise. I use to rank Die Harder as the worse of the franchise, guess who just moved up a step.

The only thing that this movie benefited the franchise is that John's son at the end actually mentions the fact that his name is actually John McClane Jr. not Jake ( in Die Hard (1988) his kids are named Lucy and John Jr.), But not actually explain the name change in the first place.

Much like when they took Oceans 12 to Europe and twisted Indiana Jones into confusing whirlwind that involved aliens, they should have just stayed in America where John McClane belongs. We got enough problems here he could fight.

Die Hard 5 was a rushed and lazy attempt of a sequel. The action was good but didnt live up to Die Hard 3 or 4. The movie was short and there was very little development of relationships or character building. It seemed like a quick money grab.

Sending John McLean to Russia just feels wrong. Let the series die.

In the early '80s and '90s, the "Die Hard" series of films were all about entertainment. Sure it's not a thought-provoking piece of art, but it's art done with class, integrity and art; these films were made at a time when action films were..actually..action films. They had no quick-style MTV editing that tries to pass itself off as "action", they were done with pure and honest craftsmanship with stunt men willing to put it all out for all to see. And for that aspect alone, they did a commendable job.

So now I look at A Good Day to Die Hard, with all the trappings that action films are known for and ostentatious hijinks that scream Michael Bay-esque action that reeks of his earlier films to date.

Bruce Willis plays McClane to a hilt, but that's all there is. No heartwarming moments, no instances of morality, no deep insights into why he kills his enemies, John McClane is just that. John McClane. A bravado of words and action that homages the earlier films.

The movie at times tries to be gritty and funny at the same time, but with such an inane screenplay and unfunny jokes, it becomes quite apparent that this film was simply not meant to continue the series. To try to adapt an relic of the '80s and '90s into a modern context with current technology, doesn't work anymore. The only exception to this is Rambo, where he was fighting against a brutal regime in Southeast Asia. It worked because the setting was raw in it's brutal intensity; plus Rambo is a timeless hero and much more plausible. John McClane is just a beefed-up Jack Bauer without the hero's legendary outbursts of anger when something goes wrong or impedes him from saving the day. Not once is there a chance for the viewer to root for McClane. He remains lifeless and stiff; the very opposite of his portrayal in the earlier films.

In an attempt to distance itself from its PG-13 predecessor, the film makers decided to make this film rated R. Yet it hardly saved the film from it's mediocre direction. I suspect this was due to the large backlash from audiences of Live Free or Die Hard, a film that was only a Die Hard film in name only, not a "true" Die Hard film, which is evident in the director's inability to handle the material.

I tried to keep an open mind, after the execrable LFODH, but after this, I hope Bruce and co. just hang up the wife beater for the final time. No more. John McClane is a hero of the past and should be left there for all time's sake.

Hey, I didn't go to this movie to compare it to other Die Hards nor was I looking for a film classic or a work of art. I just wanted some good old fashioned action and was not disappointed. The car chase with the resulting mayhem and destruction was over the top entertaining. Each set of crashes outdid the previous one. They must have destroyed 200 vehicles.

I found the scenes at Chernobyl to be extremely interesting even if they were filmed in Bulgaria. The wasteland that they somehow created was very real looking and certainly made me wonder if it actually was filmed at Chernobyl.

Anyway, maybe I am easily entertained. My gf, who is a big action fan enjoyed it as well.

Read this blog and others on my Blog : http://www.fameasserlufc.wordpress.com

John McClane is back! And this time he's On Vacation.

Following reading a lot of reviews that dubbed Die Hard 5 as boring and subtitling it "A Bad Day To Die Hard" I wasn't expecting much from the fifth instalment in a series of films which I thought peaked with the third and fell away with an average fourth film.

But I was pleasantly surprised by Willis' latest outing in the white vest.

The story centres around McClane's son, Jack, who is working as an undercover CIA agent who is aiming to stop all out carnage between two men. Naturally John is looking for his son and stumbles across him at the most inconvenient of times, slotting himself slap bang into the middle of the action.

Bruce has still got it. Sure, he's older, but the craziness still exists. There's plenty of comedy to be had mainly revolving around the disfunctionality of McClane's family life, but the film really comes to life during its action sequences which are as good, if not better than they have ever been.

One early sequence involving a huge chase through the streets of Russia is insane and ends awesomely, and TW climax of the film is much more explosive and fun than anything in Die Hard 4.0.

Forget the horrific reviews the critics have given this, go see the film and judge for yourself. Is it the best of the series? No. But it is entertaining and will raise a few chuckles as well as a lot of "Woah!" moments.

Yippie Ki-Yay Mother Russia!

While many people slated DIE HARD 4.0, I enjoyed watching it the few times I've seen it since release; I felt like it was a moderately successful way to bring the Bruce Willis-starring franchise slap bang into the 21st century, although of course it wasn't as good as the original trilogy. Inevitably, A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD followed, but the bad news is that it makes the last instalment look like a masterpiece by comparison.

This movie really is that bad, and it's all down to the people who made it. Much of the blame can be laid at the door of director John Moore, who makes even more of a mess with this than he did with MAX PAYNE; he can't even do basics like where to place his actors in their shots, and he manages to screw up every action scene in the movie (and believe me, there are a lot of them).

Still, it's no surprise that the appalling script was written by one Skip Woods, who also handled the equally rubbishy A-TEAM movie. Woods is without a doubt the worst writer currently working in Hollywood and why people still employ him is anybody's guess.

Willis realises he's making a turkey so he makes no effort whatsoever; he sleepwalks through this with a monotonous voice guaranteed to send most moviegoers to sleep. This isn't John McClane, not even the McClane of DIE HARD 4.0; instead it's just some tired old guy who clearly doesn't want to be there. As his son, Jai Courtney is given a one-dimensional character and displays none of the charm he brought to his role as Varro in SPARTACUS: BLOOD AND SAND.

The film meanders from one pointless action scene to the next, and we never get a clear idea of who the bad guys are or what they want; Willis just kind of stumbles into their plans (whatever they are) and goes along with it. The violence is mind-numblingly routine, and despite the explosive special effects the film offers little in the way of entertainment, with an early car chase being the only half-decent part purely for its destructive visuals. The great Sebastian Koch is wasted en route, and the film ends with a CGI-fuelled whimper.

I hope to God I never have to see it again.